David Thorstad

University of Oxford, Global Priorities Institute, Post-Doc

University of Oxford, Kellogg College, Junior Research Fellow

Followers

Following

Public Views

This profile is mostly inactive. Follow me at PhilPeople or at my website, https://www.dthorstad.com. Or send me an email -- I'd love to hear from you!

less

Guy Axtell

Radford University

Patrick Bondy

Wichita State University

Kurt Sylvan

University of Southampton

Liz Jackson

St. Louis University

Michael Cariño

International Graduate School of Leadership

Sebastian Schmidt

University of Zurich, Switzerland

Elise Woodard

University of Michigan

Georgi Gardiner

University of Oxford

Will Fleisher

Georgetown University

Dunja Šešelja

Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Interests

Uploads

Papers by David Thorstad

Inquiry and the epistemic

Philosophical Studies

The zetetic turn in epistemology raises three questions about epistemic and zetetic norms. First,... more The zetetic turn in epistemology raises three questions about epistemic and zetetic norms. First, there is the relationship question: what is the relationship between epis-temic and zetetic norms? Are some epistemic norms zetetic norms, or are epistemic and zetetic norms distinct? Second, there is the tension question: are traditional epis-temic norms in tension with plausible zetetic norms? Third, there is the reaction question: how should theorists react to a tension between epistemic and zetetic norms? Drawing on an analogy to practical philosophy, I develop a focal point view to resolve these motivating questions. On the focal point view, traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms answer different types of normative questions. There is nevertheless a familiar type of evaluative tension between traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms, but this tension is an unavoidable feature of the normative landscape and not a sign that traditional epistemic norms need revision. But if traditional epistemic norms are not zetetic norms, then in what sense is zetetic epistemology a project for episte-mologists? I conclude by articulating a sense in which some nontraditional epistemic norms are zetetic norms, and in which zetetic epistemology is an important part of the study of theoretical rationality.

Download

Permissive metaepistemology

Mind

Recent objections to epistemic permissivism have a metaepistemic flavor. Impermissivists argue th... more Recent objections to epistemic permissivism have a metaepistemic flavor. Impermissivists argue that their view best accounts for connections between rationality, planning and deference. Impermissivism is also taken to best explain the value of rational belief and normative assessment. These objections pose a series of metaepistemic explanatory challenges for permissivism. In this paper, I illustrate how permissivists might meet their explanatory burdens by developing two permissivist metaepistemic views which fare well against the explanatory challenges.

Download

Inquiry and the epistemic

Philosophical Studies

Download

Permissive metaepistemology

Mind

Download

David Thorstad

Related Authors

Uploads

Papers by David Thorstad

Log In